Related posts

• July 8 roundup (5)
• Update: Bring me the identity of Patent Troll Tracker (1)
• UK: prolific race litigant restrained (0)
• UK: “Evicted gipsies launch human rights claim” (0)
• U.K.: hyperactive kids given queue-jump passes (0)

In April 2008, the Diet Drugs MDL district court awarded $567 million the class counsel in that case, basing the award in part on representations by class counsel about future class recovery. A year later, a plaintiff’s attorney requested the court reopen the question of the fee award because the class counsel had exaggerated those estimates. The district court refused, holding that the one-year delay in bringing the Rule 60(b) motion was not a “reasonable time.” There has been an appeal to the Third Circuit, and, today, the Center for Class Action Fairness filed an amicus brief in support of the appeal that itself provides a short overview of the history of the fen-phen MDL. Many thanks to Chris Arfaa for his generous help in filing the brief.

Related posts

• Vioxx settlement: Judge Fallon caps fees at 32% (3)
• Damages: $0 settlement; Attorneys’ fees: $9.5 million (4)
• Update: NY Fen-Phen Fee Fracas (0)
• Update: lawyers paid in gift cards (3)
• U.S. Silica in the blogosphere (1)

Related posts

• Zombie Litigation (1)
• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• Where are the privacy advocates? (1)
• When jurors bring expertise (12)
• We’ve come for your BlackBerries… (1)

Related posts

• Joe Jamail deposition video (0)
• Zombie Litigation (1)
• Why a law-firm partner should be careful about to whom he grants signature authority (5)
• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• Where are the privacy advocates? (1)

Related posts

• Zombie Litigation (1)
• Will Congress overturn Twombly/Iqbal? (0)
• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• Where are the privacy advocates? (1)
• When jurors bring expertise (12)

Next week, the ALI has its annual meeting in Washington. Of critical importance is the May 20 vote on amendments and the Final Draft of its Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation—a document that could be of great influence in the way courts think about class actions. Beck and Herrmann have a must-read post detailing the issues involved. And they note that ALI is a nose-counting organization: policy is made by those that show up. If members of your law firm or university are ALI members, please pass along the post to them.

Related posts

• S. 17200 horror stories (0)
• Did I say anything about punitive damages? (0)
• Zombie Litigation (1)
• Yogurt marketing class action (1)
• Yes, I’m being facetious (16)

Thomas also objects to Ulizio’s characterization of the victory as “luck,” but luck definitely played a huge role. The scandal came to light solely because Judge Janis Jack held mass Daubert hearings at an abnormally early stage in the litigation. In fact (and I seem to be the only person who has ever made this point), Jack’s ruling was especially abnormal, because she made the Daubert ruling before she made a jurisdictional ruling—and her jurisdictional ruling found that 99% of the cases in front of her lacked complete diversity and needed to be remanded. In other words, Judge Jack’s famous condemnation of plaintiffs’ experts was largely an ultra vires advisory opinion (which is why her sanctions order was for only a couple of thousand dollars).

The luck of the MDL draw had everything to do with that result. Another judge might not have held Daubert hearings at such an early stage; another judge might not have actually applied Daubert even if she had held the hearings; another judge might have preferred to empty her docket immediately, rather than stalling on the eventual remand.

And these aren’t purely hypothetical musings: in the welding fumes MDL in Ohio, there has been plenty of evidence of mass tort fraud, yet the judge has refused to throw out cases, so they slowly continue to proceed to trial.

In that sense, Ulizio is absolutely right: “When you have an entire system that condones these lawsuits, that does nothing to police its own, where there are no consequences, right or wrong has nothing to do with it. It’s a coin flip.” The lawyers who brought these fraudulent cases are still practicing law; thousands of fraudulent mass tort lawsuits continue to be brought since Judge Jack’s ruling without consequence to the unethical lawyers who bring them.

Related posts

• Beaumont justice and the silicosis mass torts (3)
• Justinian Lane: reform supporter? (20)
• “The Use of Litigation Screenings in Mass Torts: A Formula for Fraud?” (0)
• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• Vioxx: Mark Lanier’s smears of the Ernst v. Merck judges (2)

Related posts

• Hot tea lawsuit has interesting procedural quirk (18)
• December 20 roundup (0)
• Adventures in legislative debt collection (1)
• Zombie Litigation (1)
• Yes, tea is hot, too. (Redux: Villona Maryash edition) (0)

Press coverage in the NY Post (h/t P.G.) is short on legal details (though one is encouraged to see Starbucks publicly defending themselves, an apparent change in policy). But I’ve downloaded and uploaded the complaint, which was filed in state court and removed to federal court. The kitchen-sink allegations include a defective cup, defectively hot tea, and a failure to warn. Right now the parties are haggling over federal removal jurisdiction, as Starbucks waited more than thirty days after receiving the complaint–until a formal demand for money was made–to seek removal. This is an interesting example of sandbagging; if defendants remove cases simply on the possibility that alleged damages will exceed the amount-in-controversy requirement, they may incorrectly remove cases that should remain in state court, but if they wait for the formal confirmation from the plaintiff, they may face the allegation that they’ve missed the 30-day window to remove a case–something to consider when plaintiffs’ attorneys complain that defendants reflexively remove cases to federal court that don’t belong there. Moltner has a good argument that Starbucks waited too long to remove, because alleged damages would have clearly exceeded $75,000 despite the lack of an ad damnum clause in the complaint citing a number, but the consequence of such a ruling will be that defendants will be forced to prematurely remove cases that perhaps should not be removed. (Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., #: 1:08-cv-09257-LAP-AJP (S.D.N.Y.)).

Related posts

• Yes, tea is hot, too. (Redux: Villona Maryash edition) (0)
• Yet another McDonald’s coffee style lawsuit (5)
• Yes, tea is hot, too: Zeynep Inanli v. Starbucks (10)
• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Update: Alice Griffin v. Starbucks (0)

Related posts

• Vioxx settlement: Judge Fallon caps fees at 32% (3)
• More on Redwood v. Dobson (1)
• Little white lies — to protect the bar’s image (0)
• “Grinch, Esq.” (4)
• Zombie Litigation (1)